4 ms·

>I chose False because the executive branch's job is to enforce the law, and the President cannot issue an order to enforce a law that does not exist. While co

>I chose False because the executive branch's job is to enforce the law, and the President cannot issue an order to enforce a law that does not exist. While correct, your choice is not based on "your personal understanding of [that] sentence's meaning", but on "your knowledge of constitutional law". The restriction of scope is critical to the point being made.

ugh 15y ago
I have a lot of trouble seeing the difference between my “personal understanding of [that] sentence’s meaning” and my “knowledge of constitutional law”. Sure, I’m free to define words any way I want – but that’s not how society works, that’s not how law works. There are necessarily mechanisms to arrive at common definitions, in everyday life and in the legal system. The common definition of “executive order” – which, obviously, comes packed with information about constitutional law – clearly states that executive orders are severely limited in their scope. That’s the definition of “executive order” I’m carrying around in my head and it is flat out impossible for me to divorce that definition from my understanding of constitutional law. I also can’t divorce my understanding of the word “standing” from what I know about gravity. It’s nonsensical.
- ataggart 15y ago
  >The common definition of “executive order” ... But neither the President, nor executive orders are mentioned in the First Amendment, which was the subject of the question at hand. The issue was not whether something is un/constitutional, but whether something is un/constitutional by dint of the First Amendment. The eagerness with which some wish to skip beyond that scope is interesting.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. That’s not really a convincing argument but very clever. If I make that one sentence from the First Amendment into the sole law of the land there is no confusion at all. The president is obviously allowed to ban speech with executive orders. Why would anyone disagree with that? This is the setup of the Gedankenexperiment and since it is quite weird it is very understandable that many people would misunderstand it, especially since he is not very clear about that setup. I took it to mean that I’m supposed to interpret that sentence within the framework of US law but somehow without my understanding of constitutional law. That’s obviously impossible. It’s a nice rhetoric trick but certainly no argument. Differences in interpretation obviously matter but the example he picked is complete rubbish and certainly exaggerates the problem in a completely dishonest way.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - ataggart 15y ago
      >Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. He makes the scope of the questions rather clear from the outset: On the basis of your personal understanding of this sentence's meaning (not your knowledge of constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Ataggart, your response to me is for some reason dead. I don't think that the author is very clear at all. He is deliberately misleading. That sentence is clear as mist.

ugh 15y ago

I have a lot of trouble seeing the difference between my “personal understanding of [that] sentence’s meaning” and my “knowledge of constitutional law”. Sure, I’m free to define words any way I want – but that’s not how society works, that’s not how law works. There are necessarily mechanisms to arrive at common definitions, in everyday life and in the legal system. The common definition of “executive order” – which, obviously, comes packed with information about constitutional law – clearly states that executive orders are severely limited in their scope. That’s the definition of “executive order” I’m carrying around in my head and it is flat out impossible for me to divorce that definition from my understanding of constitutional law. I also can’t divorce my understanding of the word “standing” from what I know about gravity. It’s nonsensical.

ataggart 15y ago
>The common definition of “executive order” ... But neither the President, nor executive orders are mentioned in the First Amendment, which was the subject of the question at hand. The issue was not whether something is un/constitutional, but whether something is un/constitutional by dint of the First Amendment. The eagerness with which some wish to skip beyond that scope is interesting.
- ugh 15y ago
  Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. That’s not really a convincing argument but very clever. If I make that one sentence from the First Amendment into the sole law of the land there is no confusion at all. The president is obviously allowed to ban speech with executive orders. Why would anyone disagree with that? This is the setup of the Gedankenexperiment and since it is quite weird it is very understandable that many people would misunderstand it, especially since he is not very clear about that setup. I took it to mean that I’m supposed to interpret that sentence within the framework of US law but somehow without my understanding of constitutional law. That’s obviously impossible. It’s a nice rhetoric trick but certainly no argument. Differences in interpretation obviously matter but the example he picked is complete rubbish and certainly exaggerates the problem in a completely dishonest way.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - ataggart 15y ago
    >Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. He makes the scope of the questions rather clear from the outset: On the basis of your personal understanding of this sentence's meaning (not your knowledge of constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Ataggart, your response to me is for some reason dead. I don't think that the author is very clear at all. He is deliberately misleading. That sentence is clear as mist.